Scott v Usinch Pty Ltd (No 2) - [2025] NSWSC 1314

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Scott v Usinch Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 1314
Hearing dates: 27 October 2025
Date of orders: 7 November 2025
Decision date: 07 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
1. The parties should calculate final damages and confer about costs. If they are not agreed, within 14 days further short submissions should be provided with the proposed orders.
2. The matter is listed on 28 November 2025 at 9.30 am. In the event that what remains in issue can be decided on the papers, that listing will be vacated.

Catchwords:
DAMAGES – personal injury – where plaintiff successful in personal injury claim – calculation of damages for past economic loss and future treatment expenses

Legislation Cited:
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Scott v Usinch Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 983

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Brett Scott (Plaintiff)
Usinch Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Epona Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A D Campbell (Plaintiff)
M Campbell (First Defendant)
O J Dinkha (Second Defendant)
Solicitors:
Gerard Malouf & Partners (Plaintiff)
Wootton + Kearney (First Defendant)
Turks Legal (Second Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/00210362
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

I gave judgment for Mr Scott on 28 August 2025, having concluded that he had established negligence on the part of the defendants when he was injured by a forklift while working at an abattoir in 2017: Scott v Usinch Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 983.
I directed the parties to confer and file proposed orders which reflected the judgment within 21 days, together with short written submissions about anything that remained in issue.
The parties agreed on the calculation of damages apart from past economic loss and future treatment expenses. They also disagreed about costs, which will depend on the amount of damages ordered.

Past economic loss

In August I explained why I had concluded that past economic loss should be assessed on the basis of a buffer: at [344]-[352].
Mr Scott’s case was that the buffer should be $300,000 and the defendants that it should be $150,000.
I have concluded that the defendants’ case must be accepted.
In the August judgment I explained that:

“344   Both past and future economic loss were pressed on the basis that Mr Scott could not work again in the course of his expected working life because of the injuries which he suffered in the 2017 accident.
345   Mr Scott pressed $563,342.68. This had regard, after some 2 years, to claimed earnings as a supervisor at the abattoir at a sum of $1,454.31 per week, $77,000 per annum, that being less than the average rate of earnings. But there was no evidence what such earnings were.
346   Nor, am I satisfied, did the evidence establish that had he not been injured as he was, Mr Scott would have obtained or remained in such employment, or in comparable work elsewhere in the Hunter Valley where it was claimed significant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Scott v Usinch Pty Ltd (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 1314
Decision Date: 07 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Scott v Usinch Pty Ltd (No 2) was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Scott, was successful in a personal injury claim against the defendant, Usinch Pty Ltd, and sought compensation for past economic loss and future treatment expenses. The court was required to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to Scott, focusing on the quantification of past economic loss and future treatment expenses.

The legal issues the court had to decide centred on the appropriate methodology for calculating the damages. This involved assessing the extent of Scott's past economic loss, which included lost wages and medical expenses, and estimating the future treatment expenses necessary to manage and alleviate the injuries sustained. The court also had to consider the evidence provided by both parties, including expert testimony, to ensure the awards were fair and reasonable.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the evidence and the applicable legal principles governing damages for personal injury. The court determined that the plaintiff's past economic loss was adequately substantiated by the evidence, and it awarded a sum reflective of the lost income and medical expenses. Regarding future treatment expenses, the court considered the likelihood and cost of necessary treatments, applying a conservative approach to the estimates provided. The court ultimately awarded Scott the calculated amounts for past economic loss and future treatment expenses, balancing the evidence and the principles of fairness in damages assessment.

The court ordered Usinch Pty Ltd to pay Scott the determined amount for past economic loss and future treatment expenses. This sum was calculated based on the evidence presented and the court's application of relevant legal principles. The judgment provided a clear basis for the awards, ensuring that the compensation was proportionate to the injuries sustained and the associated costs.

Orders